User talk:Crculver/Archive 1

Welcome

Hello, welcome to Wikipedia.

You can help improve the articles listed below! This list updates frequently, so check back here for more tasks to try. (See Wikipedia:Maintenance or the Task Center for further information.)

Fix spelling and grammar

More... • Learn how

Fix wikilinks

More... • Learn how

Update with new information

More... • Learn how

Expand short articles

More... • Learn how

Check and add references

More... • Learn how

Fix original research issues

More... • Learn how

Improve lead sections

More... • Learn how

Add an image

More... • Learn how

Translate and clean up

More... • Learn how

Help counter systemic bias by creating new articles on important women.

Help improve popular pages, especially those of low quality.

You might find these links helpful in creating new pages or helping with the above tasks: How to edit a page, How to write a great article, Naming conventions, Manual of Style. You should read our policies at some point too.

If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. If you made any edits before you got an account, you might be interested in assigning those to your username. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!

If you made any edits before you got an account, you might be interested in assigning those to your username.

You can sign your name using three tildes, like this: ~~~. If you use four, you can add a datestamp too.

If you ever think a page or image should be deleted, please list it at the votes for deletion page. There is also a votes for undeletion page if you want to retrieve something that you think should not have been deleted.

Again, welcome! - UtherSRG 15:20, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for reverting the changes on the GNAA article --Goat-see 20:21, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

OCS

I wasn't active on Wikipedia for a while so I never got around to thank you for upholding my edits of Old Church Slavonic against VMORO's reversion. So I am thanking you now :) As I see that you are interested in the topic, I'd like to point you that there are similar inaccuracies in article on Bulgarian language. For example: "The old Bulgarian language is the oldest Slav language attested in written text." or "As for the terms "Old Slav" and "Old Church Slavonic", they do not account for the actual nature and ethnic basis of the language." I'd correct these myself but VMORO usually reverts everything I write on sight, you may be of better luck... Nikola 09:27, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Re: 82.124.1.82

If you can prove that 82.124.1.82 is Irismeister, it's not necessary to contact the arbcom. Just find an admin, show them your proof, and point them to the ban. -- Grun t ҈ 19:05, 2005 Jan 14 (UTC)

Thank you...

Thank you for editing the Slavic Languages article, re Bulgarian and Macedonian. You completed my thought. You're braver than I am. ;) --VKokielov 03:12, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comment added to VfD. See my contribs... 80.229.160.150 28 June 2005 10:31 (UTC)

You sent me this message

Please do not add commercial links or links to your own private websites to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or a mere collection of external links. Thanks. CRCulver 15:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

If this is true why are half the links on the Thessaloniki page cheap ugly commercial sites full of add's that do the city no justice? Its an embarressment for someone who lives here to see that this is how you allow the city to be represented externally. I have the only quality collection of pictures of Thessaloniki on the Internet and you wont allow it? Have you actually looked at your other external links?

Finnegan's Wake

Sorry to see your claims reagrding "hero worship" on this one. Widely held to be Joyce's masterpiece, this article sits in much need of improvement. I foresee featured article staus if its polished up to its desserts. Hope you are willing to collaborate on that endeavor rather than denigrate the work ongoing.--09:37, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

"Masterpiece" is a word insinuating that the book is any good, and therefore goes against NPOV. Too many people, including Joyce's own brother, believe that the work is the shoddy creation of an unstable mind for it to be called "masterpiece" here. Furthermore, removing hero worship is just as much "collaboration" as anything else, so don't accuse me of doing wrong to the article, when I am merely trying to temper the statements of people who have too much personal sentiment invested in the article.

Fair enough. I'll not cling to the issue of masterpiece status on this. Although there are likely reputable literary sources that would support such a claim. (As an aside, since when are works by unstable minds in arts&letters automatically denied masterpiece status. Did Van Gogh produce any masterpieces?) But really, not worth taking issue with. "Labor and travail" are not necessarily hero worship, as from my readings on Joyce's life, it seems like that is what it took to get this things published. By the way, I'll copy and move this discussion to the articles talk page rather than your usertalk page, so all parties interested in collaborating on this may participate in the discussion. Happy editing.--Gaff ^talk 23:49, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oops :)

I'm sorry for reverting your useful edits too. Again I was editing lots of articles at the same time and didn't pay attention to what I was doing :) Sorry. Alensha 22:44, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Request

Although I do believe that you have an agenda, you're by far the most moderate of the Slavic editors who still live under 19th century national myths. I suggest to keep the article under its initial version until a request for comment is answered. That would mean reverting Slavic names and comments on the languages Cyril spoke, back to a much older version. Miskin 16:44, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ligeti article

I have changed only once the article and I put the right name of the city in that year. I come from that city and I realy think that I now how the name was used there in that period, and belive me it was Diciosânmartin. It is no problem form me that the name is in hungarian, german or any other language. And I have used bouth romanian and hungarian name of the city. Good luck --Olario 13:34, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From the hungarian wikipedia the city population in 1910 1910-ben 4417 lakosából 3210 magyar, 957 román, 118 német volt. from 4417 persons, 3210 were hungarians, 957 romanians , 118 germans You have writed there that was a major hungarian city, true but after 1918 the romanians that lived in the villeges nearby (didn't had the right to live there in older times) moved very fast there.

And pleas leave the article as I will modify becouse is the OFFICIAL name of the city. --Olario 13:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

????

you are the enemy of Turkic culture and traditions, i gave you well known informations about Huns

there are many racist anti-turkic people like you in everywhere, i will report you and your friends --hakozen 14:02, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

no, i will report you first, becouse you make a pure Vandalism --hakozen 23:33, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ok, im still searching about their origins, you may be right about they were not pure Turkic, but we must explain about their Turkic origin isnt it?

As we know Central Asian people are mostly Turk, and if we hide this point there wont be any historic meaning left about Huns , am i right? so we must add something different to the page i think.

--hakozen 23:58, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i think the problem is your Central Asian knowladge Central Asia is know as Turkistan,and its well known that the main 95% of people are Turks there, you should check something like i chacked about mines i think :) respect --hakozen 00:03, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is thought that originally the Turks were a small tribe who imposed their language on neighbouring peoples.

yes, i dont surprised that your say.. you claim a small tribe chaged 250 million peoples language??,sorry but its a mad joke my friend its the claim of armenians and greeks ... who are pure Anti-Turks..i ve heard that armenians and greeks also claimed that Turks are Trojans :) :)

no way man, i can work with all Finland for to save Huns and others, its not over yet

--hakozen 00:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Old edit

Re this edit - Do not remove citations from articles. Because you did, that quote was later hacked up and then removed from the article entirely, and I had to spent a good 20 minutes going through the article finding out who-did-what. Raul654 23:44, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bulgarian language

I see you are not a Bulgarian language native speaker. Why bother change someone who is university edicated in Bulgarian and slavic languages and a native speaker. It is not correct. I wish I know more about your indept and insight of Bulgarian and other Slavic languages and their roots, 'professor'. Will you share with me. Just becuase I do not register doesn't mean I do not have what correctly to state. Hope you really have something to say to me :)

Vandalism?

You just reverted a revert of mine in Hospitality Club that was justified and documented in the talk page of the article, quoting "Revert vandalism". Either that was an automatic tool's fault and I urge you to be more careful, or I would like more explanations. --User:Valmi 26 April 2006, 21:47 (keyboard without tild)

thank you

Thank you for editing me. --VKokielov 07:20, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There can most certainly be mistakes vis-a-vis the grammar of the language in question. And the rules were very strict. What I meant to say was that by that time no one spoke Church Slavic natively. --VKokielov 07:26, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No one ever spoke Church Slavonic natively, it was purely an artificial literary adaptation of Old Church Slavonic, which was at least based on the vernacular of Solun. And while some speakers might perceive an utterance to be mistaken, there is objectively no such thing as mistaken language. CRCulver 07:29, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, is Wikipedia descriptive? That's a tangential question. The primary one is this: there is no such thing as a mistaken language until you take some standard as your foundation, as some universal minimum...and, when Church Slavonic was in use, its grammar was the Holy Grail. --VKokielov 07:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that Church Slavonic was a free adaptation of OCS to local phonological and morphological traits, there was never a rigid grammar of Church Slavonic to begin with. Every region had its own variant of Church Slavonic. Therefore, there's no use making decisions on what was "mistaken" and what was "correct". CRCulver 07:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Harold Pinter Page

Hi! About the succession boxes, you're right. One laureate doesn't succeed the other, in the manner that the previous one is addressed as "ex-Nobel winner" or "former Nobel winner". However, note that "succession" may mean different things: 1. the order, act or right of succeeding to a property, title or throne [which you might be referring to]; 2. the act or process of following in order; 3. a series of persons or things that follow one after another. Well, the succession boxes in the Nobel Laureate's pages were added not to show who succeeded who (albeit I must admit that the word "succeeded by" is misleading) but the order of who received the prize before them, and after them. In any case, I also contacted several editors about this. And I will also share with you their opinions. Anyway, I reverted back the edits you made in the pages. But if your definition holds with respect to the use (or at least the perceived use) of succession boxes, then I'll take responsibility in removing the succession boxes. :) Joey80 05:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I am still waiting for some replies from others. But I'm beginning to think that a template of Laureates will be more appropriate than a succession box. I'll try to make one in the next couple of days and remove all the succession boxes. Joey80 08:14, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: OCS

Hey, no problem. I deal with this kind of stuff on a daily basis, so I'm pretty used to it. ;) Cheers, —Khoikhoi 01:43, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nobel templates deletion

Hi! Someone has recommended that the templates of Nobel Prize winners be deleted. Will it be ok if you just post your opinion at templates for deletion? Thanks, really appreciate it. =) Joey80 06:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Allen Mandelbaum

"He is currently W. R. Kenan, Jr., Professor of Humanities at Wake Forest University."
At first glance this sounds silly, as he is still Allen Mandelbaum. It should read that he is working on a grant of the W.R.Kenan, Jr. Foundation or something like that. I came across this article as somebody has translated this into German, where it is even funnier.
Please let us know something about W.R.Kenan and this Profferssorship. --Bahnmoeller 10:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Umm...

Rm "Evolution" section, these links better belong in the article on the Indo-European family... but Indo-European languages is the article on the Indo-European family! Nevertheless, the links look like they're mostly crackpottery, so I'm not sorry to see them gone. Angr (talk) 13:03, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, sorry, for some reason I thought I was editing the Sanskrit article. CRCulver 17:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Editing

I see from your discussion page that you have a rather unique, boorish and somewhat annoying approach to editing. I have found the DG website an interesting read. It seems to me to be a perfectly acceptable link from the gentleman page, relevant to those looking up the term gentleman. Please desist from vandalising the page.

Vandalism

Please stop vandalising Wikipedia pages.

Huns

My bad, I didn't notice that. Ciao. —Khoikhoi 00:23, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

to be read straightforwardly

thank you for pulling it down instead of reverting it.

I think they call that "good faith" here. Whatever it is, thank you. :) --VKokielov 00:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ru-2? откуда?! :) On the other hand, whence the surprise, when you were the one who saved that poor destitute Slavic Languages article. --VKokielov 00:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Indo-Aryan migration

Please note that I reverted your removal of a large amount of discussion from this talk page. Please do not remove legitimate discussion from any talk page. Thank you. –ArmadniGeneral (talk • contribs) 11:25, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, a little further reading on my part backs up your claims. If you'd like to remove the material again I'd no longer contest it. –ArmadniGeneral (talk • contribs) 11:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Your WP:RFI report- I have warned WIN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), however I should probably note that the edits to the talk page don't count as vandalism. They could be seen as disruption though, just be careful not to blanket remove all comments from WIN- make sure that the comments add nothing to discussion about the article. Petros471 17:21, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Given final warning. Petros471 09:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus Prayer

I'd like to express my disapproval at your deletion of my list, which I think is quite useful. The fact that it "could" go on "forever" is not reason enough to remove it. Plus, there are already two fairly analogous lists in Wikipedia already: here and here. Furthermore, no foreign-language Wikipedia has an article on the prayer yet.

If you really want some sort of limit, I’ve come up with a standard that sets the number of languages at about 21. How about only listing the prayer in the liturgical languages of autonomous or autocephalous churches, plus the national languages of Orthodox-majority countries (this part covers Belarussian)? That seems like a fair compromise to me. I’d also include Latin for historical value.

(Greek, Arabic, Russian, Georgian, Serbian, Romanian, Bulgarian, Polish, Albanian, Czech, Slovak, English, Finnish, Estonian, Latvian, Japanese, Chinese, Ukrainian, Macedonian, Belarusian, Latin would thus be the languages.)

In any case, I say we put the list back up and see where it goes, perhaps indicating these restrictions. Does that sound reasonable, or are you still totally against such a list? Biruitorul 17:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello your comment here is not acceptable: [1]

This is not the nationalistic claim it is the fact! If you going to challenge word leading linguist statements do it in appropriate manner.

Besides word more is quite a bad one in context. M.K. 08:06, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know linguists who would tell you a bit opposite view on some issues too. So does it changing something? No. And your try to see nationalists all around is a bit sick. Don’t you thing so? M.K. 20:24, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You could always copyedit it. But as I see you understand that I wrote M.K. 20:29, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

English grammar

Thank you for the advice. Should I use American, Canadian or British spelling? Eugen Ivan 22:39, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

I have studied Thomas Trautmann's works extensively and that is what I have referenced in the article. But Paul seems a little obtuse in that he wants to hide Jones's motivation in formulating the commonality of languages. You decide. Ganga Hare 10:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kubrick links

Hello. You removed my link to my new Kubrick site from various pages. What I have done now is make the links to the exact information available, rather than to the home page. But the idea that the external links are never general is ridiculous. Just look at the "Full Metal Jacket" page, for example. The "Full Metal Jacket soundboard" takes us to a general homepage rather than to specific information. So why is that link still there? And isn't the use of audio clips from the film a violation of copyright? So why is that link still there? Now let's take "The Shining". Is "The Shining in 30 seconds re-enacted by bunnies" really important information? Come on now. Your edits are arbitrary. My shot-by-shot analysis of "Eyes Wide Shut" is a significant teaching tool (I have received favorable reviews from teachers of cinema studies) and should be available to the widest possible audience. Moreover, one of Kubrick's daughters has emailed me to tell me that she is going to read the entire document and get back to me. If she was worried about copyright infringement, wouldn't she have said something? How about we both check out the Wikipedia entry for "Fair Use"?

My Kubrick site is all CONTENT and no advertisement, etc. Why are other people's reviews allowed to be linked but not my analysis?

www.scaleproductions.co.uk/kubrick/

Warned the above user, using {{test4}}. I will keep a look out. If it happens again, and the user isn't blocked, alert WP:AIAV. Regards, Iola k ana|^T 12:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is unfair. But whatever. Why do other reviews get to be linked, but not mine?

Linkspam?

Hi! You've reverted a couple of recent edits by CNicol labeling them as linkspam. Could you tell me more about your reasoning? William Pietri 00:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: linkspam

Dear Crculver, I was requested by another editor to find articles online by a number of authors to post on their WP entries as pertinent examples of their work. There are few that are available for free, but I posted the ones that I found. I see you have been deleting these as linkspam. Please explain or reinstate. Thank you, CNicol 01:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC)CNicol[reply]

Dear Crculver,

After being admonished for posting many links, it was suggested to me that I find articles from several sources to post on an author's entry. This I took as a constructive suggestion and attempted to comply. Please recognize that I am not trying to disregard an editorial policy, but learning how to participate through trial and error and advice. I intend to contribute to the bodies of articles, but the project for the evening was to find online articles from other sources as William Pietri had asked me to do. This represents a good faith response to criticism and compliance with another editor's request. CNicol 01:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)CNicol[reply]

Hi! I agree, this is my fault. CNicol's earlier behavior was definitely a little suspcious, but as you can see on CNicol's talk page I suggested that some of the links were indeed appropriate, especially in context with other links to samples of the public writings of the biography subjects in question. Did you have an issue with the new links in specific? The ones I looked at seemed ok to me. William Pietri 01:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... I share your concern about linkspammers (and indeed have been vigorous in defending Robert Zubrin against a persistent linkspammer), but I guess I'm not seeing a couple of links to an author's works as making Wikipedia a link directory. An exhaustive list would be a problem, certainly, but a few seems reasonable to me. Could you tell me more about your concerns? Thanks, William Pietri 01:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cculver- I see that I am not the only one in diagreement with you, why are you deleting everybody's External Links? Why are you fixing something that is'nt broken?Robbyfoxxxx 01:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reverts

Why are you reverting my edits? Why are you reverting them without an explanation, just calling them vandalism?--Panairjdde 23:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What admin ordered me to stop removing ADs? Who gave you the authority to revert my edits calling them vandalism?--Panairjdde 23:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, i have to agree that calling Panairjdde's edits vandalism is extremely poor form. You mahttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Crculver&action=edit&section=31y not agree with them, but it was clear that Panairjdde did them in good faith. If you don't agree, EXPLAIN please when you edit them, rather than call it vandalism, which his edits were not. If you believe you edits to reinstate CE and AD, perhaps your cause would be helped by citing a Wikipedia style convention or other RELIABLE source. --Merbabu 23:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted back; not only was that not vandalism, but according to WP:MOS it is not necessary to mention CE/AD unless in direct contrast with BCE/BC; furthermore, it is also against MOS to use both terms in the same article, as this disrupts consistency. Thanks for understanding. roma rin [talk ] 01:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, after having looked around a bit, I see that I'm getting into the middle of something that has been going on for a while between the two of you... I wasn't aware of any of this, but my previous statements still stand. It is against MOS to keep AD and CE in that context, for the reasons stated above. Thanks, roma rin [talk ] 01:24, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crculver, your calling of Panairjdde's edits "vandalism" was completely uncalled for. I'd like to advise you stay civil and avoid engaging in such edit wars. I have proposed to user:Panairjdde, that this matter be mediated, what do you think? In any case, the current sitation is not conducive to any producive work on the numerous concerned articles. Circeus 22:56, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, but I'd still recommend you be more careful in labelling edits as vandalism in edit summaries. I agree with Romarin that Panair's edit were in complete good faith and did not warrant that label, even if they were "en masse". Circeus 23:02, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CCulver, I have not seen you ADD anything to my article, all you do is delete, delete, delete. Try adding something.Robbyfoxxxx 19:42, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your message

I tend to always explain myself on Talk or at least in the edit summary if I delete something in an article. However, if I have to discuss every addition of referenced text (not deletion) on the talk page, I'd have have much less time for editing. Please ask me if anything is unclear in my edits. --Rayfield 00:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to join Wikipedia:WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy

Hi there! I've noticed that you've edited articles pertaining to the Eastern Orthodox Church. I wanted to extend an invitation to you to join the WikiProject dedicated to organizing and improving articles on the subject, which can be found at: WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy. This WikiProject was begun because a need was perceived to raise the level of quality of articles on Wikipedia which deal with the Eastern Orthodox Church.

You can find information on the project page about the WikiProject, as well as how to join and how to indicate that you are a member of the project. Additionally, you may be interested in helping out with our collaboration of the month. I hope you'll consider joining and thank you for your contributions thus far! —A.S. Damick ^talk ^contribs 18:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

T.S Eliot

Hi,

Did you remove what I wrote about T.S Eliot?

The Waste...lands

Oh I understand now, that was my first contribution to wikipedia and I was not aware of that rule. So when editing or contributing to literary pages, giving (personal) views on the author, or text is the incorrect fashion to follow? Instead, more on factual literary aspects to the said text? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ascreavie (talk • contribs) .

T.S. Eliot

You quite correctly deleted the material. I'm keeping an eye on it, but let me know if it gets reinstated. Tyrenius 05:08, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cyril

Crculver, the user has also added the same link to the "St. Methodius" and to the "St. Cyril and St. Methodius" article. Juro 18:03, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's about having a more real statistics

There are 3 numbers there: 8,5; 8.9 and 12.5. We should keep first the lower one. --ElevatedStork 18:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Farmer is not a major scholar

The article I referenced clearly states that Steve Farmer is a fringe element. Ol' Herr Witzel is the one major scholar who touts the view (big surprise coming from someone like Herr Witzel) that Indus valley people were uncivilized. Therefore, the majority consensus is still that it's a script. Provide proof that more than 2 mainstream scholars say otherwise, or I'll revert after 24 hrs.Netaji 06:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bose

that does it: I suggest you ban 'Netaji' for at least a week, or ask another admin to do it (I am still reluctant to block him myself, because he is targetting me, but if this grows any more blatant, I'll do it and post the block for review). dab (ᛏ) 15:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see you joined in 2004 -- did you never want to become an admin? You are doing useful work, so I don't think there would be any (non-trollish) objections to an rfa. dab (ᛏ) 16:00, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

no, but I note you have below 2,000 edits, which amounts to a rather low frequency over two years. Maybe you should accumulate another 400 edits or so first (both 'content' and 'patrolling' style, I do think your willigness to deal with trolls like WIN speak in your favour). dab (ᛏ) 16:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

H- reflex in Slavonic

Where do the multitude h-words in the Slavic languages come from? --VKokielov 16:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Such as "hoteti". --VKokielov 16:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

h isn't Proto-Slavic, but arose secondarily in some dialects (e.g. Czech), see also Һ). dab (ᛏ) 16:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, it was a Common Slavonic phoneme. However, the word xotěti "to want" shows original /x/, while the /x/ that appeared in central dialects where it has now replaced /g/, is secondary. CRCulver 16:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

oh, I see, we are discussing /x/, I was thinking /h/. Would I be right in saying that /h/ was no Proto-Slavic phoneme, though? dab (ᛏ) 23:01, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's a problem of transcription. I believe the "h" in Ukrainian and South Russian dialects which derives from Common Slavonic "g" (e.g. hospodi) is voiced, while the "h" of the OP's "hoteti", the phoneme that has been in Slavonic throughout, is unvoiced. Nonetheless, both are velar fricatives. CRCulver 23:08, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You

Were you planning to write an article about Sabai Wine Spritzer? In the highly unlikely event an article is written on that, and then judged to be notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia, how hard would it be to wikilink it again? Please do not point out any policies to me. Thanks! BabuBhatt 16:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for my rudeness. BabuBhatt 16:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

alternative name for administrative divisions of ROmania

pls see Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-17 names of administrative divisions of Romania . I invite you check Britannica articles about administrative divisions of Romania. Criztu 18:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This Khoikhoi (to be read coiyote) is such an anti-romanian dude. I don't trust him, look how many times he was blocked...--202.69.140.19 18:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of Khoikhoi's personal feelings about Romania, his revert was still sound. Wikipedia represents the names of minorities, even if said names are not used in English. See Thessaloniki. It is good faith to reflect the names of both the national government and minorities, doing otherwise would be just as "anti-Hungarian" as you accuse this user of being "anti-Romanian". CRCulver 18:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

but the hungarian names are not removed from the article, they are provided in the paragraph dealing with that minority. There is a hungarian (or indian, or romanian) minority living in England, yet there are no alternate romanian or hungarian or indian names for London. Criztu 18:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And there is a difference between a legacy name of a city that was administrated by other states in recent history, and an administrative division of a state, which belongs to that state only, being an element of that states Sovereignty Criztu 18:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There would be if the Hungarians, Indians, or Romanians were living there for a while and felt a deep historical connection to the land. Also, refer to EU and CoE recommendations that if a minority is over 8-10% of the population, full bilingualism be in place. That's true for judet Cluj. CRCulver 18:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Witzel

There is an article on Indus Script, I linked it there. It is called the "Indus script" not "body of signs, letters......."Bakaman%% 02:57, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... yeah that is weird. He's got so much info and yet he wastes it ranting. I'll try and integrate his info into the article. He's a better translator than Witzel.Bakaman%% 03:13, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to find scholarly pages, but I really don't trust dab. It seems he discounts any historian not named Witzel, Farmer or Doniger as a Hindutva activist. I'll look for experts on Hinduism (not Witzel, but people with actual Hindu credentials like Shastris, Pandits, Swamis) and archaeologists and the like. Bakaman%% 03:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, in reading the article, except for some pro-AIT (mitanni kazakhstan androvo speculation) mumbo jumbo in the middle, I found the article to be actually fairly balanced. Bakaman%% 03:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Serialims

I agree, it isn't our job to declare art good, bad, passe or important, merely to sort through the available material and try and order and weight what has been said in notable sources. POV pushing - both in terms of pushing orthodoxy, and in pushing attacks simply isn't in the mode of wikipedia. Stirling Newberry 14:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR block

No, I'm afraid you get smacked for 3RR now; you reverted four times at Sanskrit:

I realize you were reinstating a version with more support, but revert wars are not constructive. Please note that the WP:3RR rule is an electric fence, not an entitlement to revert three times a day. I will consider shortening the block if you undertake not to revert war. Bishonen | talk 16:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC).[reply]

One of those was a productive addition to the article's contents, not a mere revert. That brings it down to three reverts. I should not have been blocked. CRCulver 23:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which one? Checking with the "Detail" section of WP:3RR, I concluded that all four were reverts, but I'm open to argument. Work with me, please. Bishonen | talk 23:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC).[reply]

That labeled 3 above was an attempt to change the wording to something new to placate both sides, not just a mere revert. CRCulver 23:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know what you mean — no, it's not a mere revert, but I believe that according to WP:3RR it's still a revert:

"Even if you are making other changes at the same time, continually undoing other editors' work counts as reverting. "Complex partial reverts" refer to reverts that remove or re-add only some of the disputed material while adding new material at the same time, which is often done in an effort to disguise the reverting. This type of edit counts toward 3RR, regardless of the editor's intention."

I'm not saying you were trying to disguise anything. I do see the good-faith attempt at compromise. But still, you did change "ancient" back to "archaic" four times. I'm sorry nobody else has responded to your unblock request, we should have more eyes on this if you think my count is wrong. I'm going to ask some other admin to take a look without prejudice, somebody in a better timezone (I'm about to go to bed). Bishonen | talk 00:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC).[reply]

I have noted at Bharatveers talkpage that you were the other party that violated 3RR. This was not directed against you personally. It is just unfair when not all parties are treated equally, which seemed to happen. Either everybody should be treated equally for 3RR, or nobody be blocked (which was my preferred option). This is just a principle of fairness, otherwise wikipedia wouldn't work. --RF 17:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Bishonen asked me to look into this. In the interim, User:Blnguyen also did, and came to the conclusion that you reverted 5 times, and lengthened your block a little. I must say I am not seeing this fifth revert and have asked him to clarify. I do however agree that you have violated 3RR. The revert in question, the compromise one, did eliminate the word "ancient" and restore the word "archaic", and that was the meat of the matter. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. Well, the "fifth revert" was this one, edit summary "rvv". The reverted edit is pretty bad, but does have some non-vandalistic text in it. Blnguyen and I discussed it and decided to split the difference and call it half a revert, which (using Blnguyen's calculus of 6 hours per revert) means your total block length is now 27 hours, and your block is expiring 17 hours from now. Take care. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About the Jeff Buckley edit...

It's in the Bio, Dream Brother...

How do I cite that?

68.179.153.72 22:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Easy, tiger!

Relax man! Making a genuine error does not equate to vandalism. I genuinely believed I had been reliably informed that "OK" was from the Langue D'Oc. I didn't study linguistics, but I was told this by a contemporary of mine at Cambridge University who was. I'll check with them and see what they say. So chill out man! People make mistakes sometimes and it's an over-reaction to accuse such people of spreading nonsense and being vandals! Just correct the mistake and calm down. That's what Wikipedia is all about.

But see [6]. So I think perhaps you should retract the accusation of vandalism and just accept that there is more than one point of view on this, whether you agree with it or not.

Punanimal 15:42, 9 Sep 2006 (UTC)

No problem dude ... be relaxed, spread peace & love. Punanimal 16:40, 9 Sep 2006 (UTC)

Huns

The reasons are already mentioned in the talk page [[7]], also in the edit comments. You deleted the information about "Hunnic language" and the wikipedia link to the Hunnic Language article. Furthermore, your comments are very far away from academical type of writing. I stated in the discussion/talk page of "Huns" article in detail on September 8, 2006, but you never checked that page. For the "Huns" article, I just paraphrased the sentences and kept the "Hunnic language" link. Another user also warned about the language in the edit summary by writing "stop blocking Turkic language". You are trying to push your POV fork as the other users commented, not only in the edit history page, but also in the discussion/talk page. What you did is called vandalism. e104421

7RR Sanskrit

You have been blocked for 96 hours. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 01:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Users User:Bharatveer and User:Spiritindia likewise exceeded the limits and should be blocked. Note, however, that my edits were only restoring the article to Talk page consensus. The edits of these other two users, in upsetting Talk page consensus that went undisturbed for months, could be fairly considered vandalism, and 3RR does not apply to vandalism. CRCulver 02:50, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is not vandalism. They are also under 3RR.Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 02:55, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

wth? see my comment here. dab (ᛏ) 07:06, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mahabharata

I don't think Hittite texts are very relevant here :) both Spiritindia and you seem to confuse Mahabharata (the account) and the Kurukshetra war (the event). Sure, the text is in Classical Sanskrit and cannot predate 600 BC or so. This will not stop some people to claim that the text is based on actual events that took place much earlier. Indeed, there is nothing that would preclude that the epic is in fact based on a historical war that might have taken place any time between say 1200 and 600 BC, much like the (say 700 BC) Iliad may well be based on events of the 1190s BC. The 3102 BC date is of course completely unrealistic. It is apparently based on calculations dating to the 5th century AD. Most of these editors are have some hearsay notions of "Mahabharata, 3102 BC" without being aware about the first or last circumstance. The Mahabharata itself does not claim it dates to any date at all, these are scholarly speculations of an early medieval author. dab (ᛏ) 07:06, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not, it's not a matter of my confusing the event and the text. Rather, it was a response to Spiritindia's assertion that the names were all Sanskrit. If you don't have a text going back to the date in question, you can't argue much about the language of the date in question. CRCulver 07:24, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Well, Wikipedia is a good place to boggle at how difficult it can be to impress the perfectly obvious on minds that have simply no interest in reaching a certain conclusion. dab (ᛏ) 07:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your revert @ Thessaloniki

If you disagree with the other names of Thessaloniki being on another page, then you should also edit pages such as Istanbul and Skopje. Otherwise you look suspicious. --Crvst 21:30, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look here, Christopher Culver. If I spend my time blabbering away idly in talk-pages then I would be just another selective magpie like yourself who edits WP articles only if they're close to the place of his hobbies. I choose to be bold like WP itself suggests. --Crvst 22:42, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]